Cheney's "Secret"

[hoyainspirit]

OK easyed, Boz, bin, TC, C2C, strummer, Stig, exorcist, Cam, Cambridge, all the big-time B&G posters, I'm calling you out. The Cheney story was reported many days ago and not one of you has commented. What's up with that? You are depriving me of my reading pleasure.

tinyurl.com/n5u672

tinyurl.com/lhu5q6

Say something, please.

[Boz]

I'm not sure what there is to say. The first article seems to have it pretty much right. With what we know now, it's kind of a non-story....(to everyone outside of Seymour Hersh and MSNBC, that is).

If there's more to the story than what we know now, then we can address that when something new comes to light. Until then, I don't see the news here.

EDIT: Sorry, I will add one more thing. I think it is misleading to label this an "assassination" program. No government I am aware of recognizes al Qaeda as a legitimate organization, and no al Qaeda operator as a legitimate political figure. Yes, OK, by the dictionary definition, you could call them assassinations (but even that is iffy, depending on the dictionary you use). But this isn't "The Day of the Jackal" either. I think the connotation the public has with the word "assassination" makes this sound like more than it is. You could just as easily call it "counter-terrorist operations."

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Yeah, I'm kinda with Boz on this one. Don't get me wrong, I think Cheney did some shaaaaaady things in office, and this is probably one, substantively and procedurally, but for now there's not that much to go on. Olbermann and Maddow kind of beat it to death on their respective shows last night, and even Maddow's guest didn't add too much to chew on.

As for assassinating al Qaeda members, (1) didn't we already declare war on them, (2) as Boz says, aren't they not really "assassinatable" (assassinable?) according the definition of the terma applied by administrations past (didn't Clinton say that the assassination thing only applies to heads of state?), and (3) haven't there been dozens of assassinations and assassination attempts of this kind for decades by CICs of both parties?

I guess it depends on where it stops, and the degree to which the program is used and on whom, which means there needs to be oversight (sorry Dick, I just don't trust ya to self police), which leads me to my next point.

The major issue I have at this point is procedural. That is, we don't really know what Cheney's program was, but has was wrong (and probably acted illegally) in ordering this be kept secret from Congress and everyone else whether the program was legit or not (and my knee is jerking toward not). The point is that we just don't know, but should (not "we" as the public, but "we" the properly-credentialed and security-clearanced Intelligence Cmte, the SECDEF, the Natl Sec Adv, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, etc.) So again, my main issue --- until we know more specifics --- is that there wasn't any oversight or any checks on Cheney.

I think that one article you linked got it right:
Obviously, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees should investigate the assassination policy under the Bush administration. Cheney’s role is central to that. Prosecutors should also be authorized to do the same. If there is a nefarious program that the public is unaware of and was unlawfully concealed, it should be brought out into the light. But, the truth is that a real investigation—one that actually seeks to get to the broader truths of these matters— would require investigating the current assassination program under Obama and the roots of the program that preceded the day when George W Bush took power. That means looking at the Clinton White House and further back. It means looking at both Democratic and Republican assassination teams. The sad fact is that nobody on Capitol Hill has demonstrated in any way that they have the political courage to do that.

And there was a great piece of unintentional comedy too:
A former senior Clinton official speaking shortly after 9/11 called on the Bush administration not to escalate the U.S. assassination program, saying “We have a war on drugs, too, but we don’t kill drug lords.” But then, with no apparent sense of contradiction, the official added, “we have proxies who do.

[Deleted]

It's summertime, man - the only thing I'm paying attention to are the tide charts and whether the flounder are hitting the live bait or fake.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Jul 15, 2009 16:14:58 GMT -5 @cam said:

It's summertime, man - the only thing I'm paying attention to are the tide charts and whether the flounder are hitting the live bait or fake.

Man I miss the days of following tide charts all summer long, albeit to check out waves and spear fishing opps, not flounder ... ah those halycon days livin' in so cal ... now I pay attention to the tides of interns and tourists in the ocean of humanity that is DC ...

[SFHoya99]

I didn't really get into this story until I saw the article asking what his daughter thought of it.

Next, I want Levi Johnston's opinion.

[The Stig]

I agree with pretty much everything Coast2Coast said. There do appear to be some procedural issues with oversight and such. It's rather disturbing that Cheney put a program into effect without telling anybody, and that Panetta didn't find out about it until a week ago. That sort of goes against the whole idea of checks and balances.

It's obviously hard to comment on the program itself without knowing the details. If it was the targeted killing of terrorist leaders, than I don't have a fundamental problem with it, although I'd like to know the details before passing judgment.

[Bando]

I prefer Shatner's secrets

[TC]

Couldn't you have found a more reputable link for this story than Alex Jones' InfoWars? I mean seriously, I love ads for a years supply of freeze dry foods for my TEOTWAWKI needs and Obama's New World Order and 9/11 Truther fanfiction and all, but come on.

[theexorcist]

If the Obama administration and Congress want to start a fight on this, more power to them. Best of luck describing to America in sound bite format why a plan to kill members of Al Qaeda was a really bad thing.

[Bando]

Jul 15, 2009 22:49:47 GMT -5 TC said:

Couldn't you have found a more reputable link for this story than Alex Jones' InfoWars? I mean seriously, I love ads for a years supply of freeze dry foods for my TEOTWAWKI needs and Obama's New World Order and 9/11 Truther fanfiction and all, but come on.

Is that where the link is to? Oh man, HIS, you lose automatically there.

[The Stig]

I think this was the program Panetta was on about: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/us/20intel.html?_r=1&hp

It sounds like Panetta didn't have a problem with assassinating Al Qaeda leaders, but he had a problem with using an outside contractor to do so. If that's the case, then I agree with him. If we have to fight a war, then I want our soldiers who have sworn loyalty to our country doing it, not hired mercenaries.

Now, if Blackwater had actually done what they promised to do and helped us eliminate Al Qaeda bigwigs, then I might put my ideological argument aside for pragmatic reasons. No matter what way you cut it, a dead Al Qaeda bigwig is better than a living Al Qaeda bigwig. But Blackwater didn't hold up their side of the deal. They just took our tax dollars and ran. Based on what's become public, this program shouldn't have lasted as long as it did, and Panetta was right to cancel it as soon as he found out about it.